and now, The second amendment applies only to beer drinkers and RX medication users.

Its good to know the govt is protecting me from myself by protecting themselves from me. Very curious.

http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/ATFOpenLetter092111.pdf

its a good thing drunken people never mishandle firearms.

/faceplam /buysgunanyway

And Sept 21, the US GOVT issued a memo saying Firearms Dealers can and will be in trouble for selling to LEGAL MEDICAL CANNABIS users.

The second amendment applies only to beer drinkers and RX medication users.

Its good to know the govt is protecting me from myself by protecting themselves from me. Very curious.

http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/ATFOpenLetter092111.pdf


LOL is his name really Tony Boloney though ... cmon

You keep saying 'human CO2' as though its a different variety than 'natural' CO2. CO2 is CO2, it doesn't matter if its belched out of a volcano, out of the tail pipe of a car or the tail pipe of a cow.

When we burn carbon traps like trees, oil, and coal, we release the carbon into the air in the form of CO2. While the proportion people release is smaller than that which is naturally released, it is enough to exceed what can naturally be absorbed in combination with what is naturally released. Thus we see an increase in overall atmospheric CO2.

What do you think happens to the excess CO2? Do you think because its 'human CO2' it some how doesn't contribute to overall atmospheric CO2?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Aaaaand this is why Huntsman will not win the GOP nomination. He's an idiot who accepts the false premise that "99%" of all scientists agree that human CO2 is the cause of all climate change, and that tax & cap schemes have any prayer of doing anything about it. The real 'anti-science' camp here is not the GOP. They GOP loves science. They just hate BAD science, which is what all the AGW Flavor-Aid drinkers have on thier side.
There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what an actual scientist is talking about. "Climate change" is a generic term that only means the climate is changing. I'd say 100% of "all scientists" agree with this simple statement. The debate is NOT about whether or not Earth's climate has cycles.
But when the Warmies talk about "Climate change" they are not talking about the generic term. They pack so many other things into those two words that it becomes almost impossible to have an intelligent, reasonable, fact-based discussion with them. But you can boil their intent down.
"100% of all scientists agree that 100% of all climate change is caused by human CO2. Also, 100% of all scientists agree that the way to address climate change is by massive taxation and other big government solutions. Earth will experience catastrophic world-wide destruction which would wipe out all humanity unless we ACT NOW!"
But this is not true. Not all scientists agree that CO2 is what is driving climate change. Not even a majority agree with that position. There is no solid evidence of it. There are only theories and projections - many of which have been proven to be based on bad data and falsehoods. To say "all science" agrees with the AGW theory is total bollocks.
So it is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of "bad" science, while accepting the ACTUAL "100%" agreement in regards to overall climate changes. Climate changes. DUR. The argument is over whether (A) human CO2 has anything to do with it and (B) even IF (!!IF!!) human CO2 has anything to do with it, whether or not these massive cap & tax schemes would have any impact of value.
The GOP is not "anti-science". That is just a typical left-wing neolib pile of bologna. If anything, the GOP is more "pro-science" than any liberal is because they are less blinkered by bias and accept a variety of arguments as opposed to this lockstep groupthink neolibs try to use to shut down real analysis in the climate debate.

Aaaaand this is why Huntsman will not win the GOP nomination. He's an idiot who accepts the false premise that "99%" of all scientists agree that human CO2 is the cause of all climate change, and that tax & cap schemes have any prayer of doing anything about it. The real 'anti-science' camp here is not the GOP. They GOP loves science. They just hate BAD science, which is what all the AGW Flavor-Aid drinkers have on thier side.

There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what an actual scientist is talking about. "Climate change" is a generic term that only means the climate is changing. I'd say 100% of "all scientists" agree with this simple statement. The debate is NOT about whether or not Earth's climate has cycles.

But when the Warmies talk about "Climate change" they are not talking about the generic term. They pack so many other things into those two words that it becomes almost impossible to have an intelligent, reasonable, fact-based discussion with them. But you can boil their intent down.

"100% of all scientists agree that 100% of all climate change is caused by human CO2. Also, 100% of all scientists agree that the way to address climate change is by massive taxation and other big government solutions. Earth will experience catastrophic world-wide destruction which would wipe out all humanity unless we ACT NOW!"

But this is not true. Not all scientists agree that CO2 is what is driving climate change. Not even a majority agree with that position. There is no solid evidence of it. There are only theories and projections - many of which have been proven to be based on bad data and falsehoods. To say "all science" agrees with the AGW theory is total bollocks.

So it is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of "bad" science, while accepting the ACTUAL "100%" agreement in regards to overall climate changes. Climate changes. DUR. The argument is over whether (A) human CO2 has anything to do with it and (B) even IF (!!IF!!) human CO2 has anything to do with it, whether or not these massive cap & tax schemes would have any impact of value.

The GOP is not "anti-science". That is just a typical left-wing neolib pile of bologna. If anything, the GOP is more "pro-science" than any liberal is because they are less blinkered by bias and accept a variety of arguments as opposed to this lockstep groupthink neolibs try to use to shut down real analysis in the climate debate.

I don't know what I'm going to do when I move back to America. Right now I live in the land of trappists (Belgium) where the best beers costs about $.90 per bottle in the grocery store. I love Westmalle, though I can never decide between the dubble or the triple.

In reply to this comment by Skeeve:
Haha, some other Trappist drinkers eh? I'm a big fan of the Westmalle Tripel myself. Though, considering its cost over here, I'm more likely to be drinking the Rutting Elk Red from the Grizzly Paw Brewery in Canmore, AB.

Haha, some other Trappist drinkers eh? I'm a big fan of the Westmalle Tripel myself. Though, considering its cost over here, I'm more likely to be drinking the Rutting Elk Red from the Grizzly Paw Brewery in Canmore, AB.

Yeah, those documented benefits only apply to occasional drinkers. If you consume it regularly you will be slower and more tired and less happy then if you were a non drinker. i think pretty much any stimulant works like that though. You have to recover in-between doses to get benefits while using.

@MarineGunrock

Yeah, I wouldn't assume that there would be a substantial increase, and I accept that I might be really unusual. Case studies of other countries that have legalized it would be the only good evidence, and even then it's hard to filter out the confounding factors.

But it just seems to me that it's arguing on the terms of the opposition. Going back to alcohol prohibition, a lot of people argue that consumption fell by 10% - 20% during prohibition. And maybe some light drinkers couldn't be bothered to go to go to the speakeasies or buy moonshine from shady characters. But that doesn't even begin to compare to the terrible cost of organized crime, or the injustice of treating ordinary people like criminals.

>> ^berticus:

BOOOOOOOOOOOORIIIIIIIIIIING
>> ^ghark:
Seems more like propaganda than anything, there are myriad health problems associated with coffee. Several significant ones include a correlation (dosage dependant) between caffiene intake and heart palpitations, headaches, tremors and insomnia.
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/2/239.abstract
This is not even taking into account coffee's relatively high acidity (i.e. don't drink it on an empty stomach) and the long term effects it may have on the central nervous system. Brain scans do show significant differences in blood flow in the brains of drinkers and non-drinkers.
The major reason I don't drink it is because of its addictiveness, I prefer to choose what I put in my mouth-hole, rather than have some dopaminergic neurons tell me what I should be drinking.



*waves excitement wand over berticus

Wow. I really thought there were all sorts of health problems associated with coffee.

I do drink it regularly, the high wears off as my body stops producing its own dopamine, and I'm merely topping up the dopamine that would have been produced normally. I only get a high when I'm not a regular drinker. But if I drink coffee only occasionally, I just suffer, so I've cut it out entirely.

I had no idea that it actually helped memory. I might try it.

BOOOOOOOOOOOORIIIIIIIIIIING

>> ^ghark:

Seems more like propaganda than anything, there are myriad health problems associated with coffee. Several significant ones include a correlation (dosage dependant) between caffiene intake and heart palpitations, headaches, tremors and insomnia.
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/2/239.abstract
This is not even taking into account coffee's relatively high acidity (i.e. don't drink it on an empty stomach) and the long term effects it may have on the central nervous system. Brain scans do show significant differences in blood flow in the brains of drinkers and non-drinkers.
The major reason I don't drink it is because of its addictiveness, I prefer to choose what I put in my mouth-hole, rather than have some dopaminergic neurons tell me what I should be drinking.

Seems more like propaganda than anything, there are myriad health problems associated with coffee. Several significant ones include a correlation (dosage dependant) between caffiene intake and heart palpitations, headaches, tremors and insomnia.

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/2/239.abstract

This is not even taking into account coffee's relatively high acidity (i.e. don't drink it on an empty stomach) and the long term effects it may have on the central nervous system. Brain scans do show significant differences in blood flow in the brains of drinkers and non-drinkers.

The major reason I don't drink it is because of its addictiveness, I prefer to choose what I put in my mouth-hole, rather than have some dopaminergic neurons tell me what I should be drinking.

>> ^gwiz665:

Alcohol is not the killer, the gun is. You can't kill anyone with alcohol, you need the car (or a weapon).
>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^gwiz665:
This is why amateurs should not have guns and this is why gun laws in the states are also crazy.
Might as well outlaw alcohol too then. Idiot drunks kill people on the highway, so obviously no one can be trusted to drink.
On a side note, I know an "Alcohol Enforcement Officer"... drinks more than anyone I've ever met, and not in a good way.



It does slowly kill the drinker though... *trollface*

Interestingly, or not, but I understand he's a non-drinker nowadays.

> Hmm, demonstrates considerable upper body strength for an inveterate drinker.

Call him what you like, but I draw the line at spineless !!!